A few years ago North Korea had some Cisco routers with all ports open to the Internet, wonder if they are vulnerable.

Sounds more like a honeypot.

Since a single, angry dude brought down much of their internet I'd not be certain

Are they baiting Winnie the Pooh?

Isn't that China?

That's the reference.

To be fair, it is a 3mo batch. The better analogy would be a long business trip or on site project, not a remote vs. in office job.

Moreover, for better or worse, the all day every day work culture typical of venture-backed startups isn't really compatible with being a new parent etc. anyway.

Oracle has this trademark in numerous countries. Even if this USPTO proceeding cancels it in the US, someone will need to cancel it in every other country to be safe for using it for a global software project/company. Because they filed directly in each country, rather than using the Madrid/WIPO process, a US cancellation doesn't affect the others at all.

(Likewise, even if Oracle wins this, they could still have to spend to defend it in other countries or risk losing it there if challenged.)

For those like me who are not Ruby users/devs, it might be good to explain who exactly Ruby Central is? I assumed they were analogous to Python Soft Foundation or Linux Foundation etc. as the entity of maintainers/owners/whatever of Ruby.

But it seems that they have nothing to do with the ruby-lang.org site where the Ruby binaries itself are distributed. Instead, their own site appears to primarily list them as responsible for organizing an annual conference?

And who owned the RubyGems infrastructure before this takeover? The website (and domain that the client actually calls to get the gems, presumably) seem to have already been part of Ruby Central, so what exactly changed here ownership wise, beyond just kicking the maintainers?

(unrelated -- seeing a mention of DHH here reminded me that I haven't seen anything of the Matt/WP drama in a long time on HN -- time to go Google whatever the resolution of that was)

Until a few years ago, RubyCentral was very similar to the Python Software Foundation in that it managed all the infrastructure and the main conferences - everything except language development.

A few years ago, RubyCentral lost power when the Rails Foundation was created (most of the Ruby world revolves around Rails). The Rails Foundation organizes its own yearly conference, and RubyCentral stopped hosting theirs.

However, RubyCentral still controls the package management tools and the package registry.

IIRC, you have to do something called a "compliance export," which just like any other compliance feature (SSO, HIPAA BAA, audit logs, etc.) usually requires the highest plan. It's designed to add some extra friction so admins can't just add themselves to a DM from the main UI like they could with a channel, but it is possible.

> you're supposed to be able to squeeze buttons on either side of the phone. But it only works with the volume buttons on the left

I don't recall there ever being any official language about "squeezing both sides of the phone" to make emergency calls. Doesn't the feature description in Settings explicitly reference which buttons to press?

Federal cases are generally at least partially unsealed once the defendant is arrested. Especially since the charge is supposedly workplace related not terrorism etc, then someone should be able to pull the case in PACER and at least find out the basic details.

> Plenty of cutting-edge science needs hobbyist-level EE, it's just not work in EE

But aren't there a lot of actual hardware products that are "simple circuit blocks connected to a microcontroller"? Like a toaster, shaver, keyboard, etc. If that's not "work in EE" then what is it classified under? It's not CS either.

That would be Computer Engineering. Its somewhere between EE and CS.

The actual electrical engineering involved there is the sort of thing that an early-career engineer could bang out in an afternoon. Maybe a day or so for the PCB designer. The more time consuming part might be managing the regulatory compliance testing.

Most of the orgs I worked in building simple circuit blocks connected to a microcontroller either farmed out the actual EE work to contractors or design houses or had 1 EE for like 20 different projects.

It would have been better phrased as "research in EE." There's no research involved in building a toaster.

Another commenter pointed this out, but those products take about 1-2 days of engineering time.

Computer engineering is the degree for that.

Also, it seems to mistake some definitions as causes.

A coronavirus isn't "claimed" to cause SARS. Rather, SARS is a name given to the disease cause by a certain coronavirus. Or alternatively, the name SARS-nCov-1 is the name given to the virus which causes SARS. Whichever way you want to see it.

For a more obvious example, saying "influenza virus causes influenza" is a tautology, not a causal relationship. If influenza virus doesn't cause influenza disease, then there is no such thing as an influenza virus.

Yes, I agree there are a lot of definitions or descriptions masquerading as explanations, especially in medicine and psychology. I think maybe insurance has a lot to do that. If you just describe a lot of symptoms, insurance won't know whether to cover it or not. But if you authoritatively name that symptom set as "BWZK syndrome" or something, and suddenly switch to assuming "BWZK syndrome" is a thing, the unknown cause to the symptoms, then insurance has something it can deal with.

But this description->explanation thing, whatever the reason, is just another error people make. It's not that different from errors like "vaccines cause autism". Any dataset collecting causal claims people make is going to contain a lot of nonsense.

Presumably this won't apply to Chinese OEMs, since even though their devices do ship a disabled by default Google Mobile Services (without the user facing Play Store APK), it obviously would not be suitable to require Google involvement for developing internal apps. The OEMs could set up such a debug licensing service themselves, but each of them would have to do it themselves, and then it would be impossible to debug Google-based apps on the devices.

Many Chinese OEMs are not Google certified, so it won't for sure apply to them. Some (Huawei) even had to implement their own app store and replacement for Google services. They are basically de-googled devices, though, sadly, often loaded with spyware from the other camp.

But some, like Oppo and Vivo are--they ship with a Google-OKed copy of GMS, and redistribute the Play Store on their own app store as a way to install it (ostensibly for use when traveling outside the mainland, though it can also be used with a VPN). So clearly they are on some level Google certified.

However, they also contain switches to disable background GMS, which makes them almost de-googled. All of them, not just Huawei, have their own app store/updater, and have some sort of push notification to replace Firebase Cloud Messaging (as I understand, Tencent provides a one touch service so devs don't need to hardcode each OEMs notifications). Otherwise, it would be impossible to get apps or notifications without a VPN/proxy.